Jake, thanks for taking up the challenge. I'm posting here so the debate thread can contain only debate posts. As for "rules," I propose we use the format I mentioned above. Since you're the "pro" position, you would go first with your Opening Statement, then I would go with mine. Opening Statements would contain a basic summary of each sides' arguments. Then you post the first rebuttal/expanded argument, then I do likewise, and we take turns. I'm fine with either an open-ended length, or some limit like four "turns" each (or some other number). After we've taken our maximum number of "turns" or decided we've both made our full cases, we would do our Concluding Statements, you first, then me.

A couple other rules off the top of my head: No YouTube videos, and no plagiarism of anyone else's arguments. Citations should use proper footnoting (the "Nb" button above the smilies in the "toolbar" area) linking to any sources used, or giving a proper bibliographic citation if we cite a book.

Does that work for you? Do you have any specific preferences for length of the debate?

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

Yeah, I was looking forward to it too. Jake said he might be able to return and do it at some point, buuuut, I won't hold my breath. I'll just have to wait 'till somebody with Tektonics as their home page and dreams of being the next William Lane Craig shows up...

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

I wish to debate magicmiles on his reasoning of being a member of this website when he has no inclination to actually debate in anything unless it's a topic in which he starts, and based on that: where he states he has other matters to attend to and won't be able to reply until much later yet replies in other topics either derictly or later yet ignoring his own topics that have excessive amounts of replies.

I have an idea as to why this is but I wish to debate the issue with him to find out if what I think is true.

I wish to debate magicmiles on his reasoning of being a member of this website when he has no inclination to actually debate in anything unless it's a topic in which he starts, and based on that: where he states he has other matters to attend to and won't be able to reply until much later yet replies in other topics either derictly or later yet ignoring his own topics that have excessive amounts of replies.

I have an idea as to why this is but I wish to debate the issue with him to find out if what I think is true.

-Nam

I agree with this. As I commented in the latest thread he started but just somehow ran out of time with, theists do this all too often. I wish there was some way to penalize them for wasting people's honest attempts to help them.

And secondly, you must be able to demonstrate that your definition of god is correct, and my definition is wrong. And - sorry to say - to do that, I rather suspect you will need to show some evidence.....

That is a subject for another thread.

Just to clarify: are you saying that you ARE prepared to demonstrate your definition of god is correct, and provide evidence to support it, in another thread? If so I would be more than happy to discuss it with you in the debate room: the benefit to you there is that you would only be discussing it with me, and not have to field umpteen questions from several other participants.

Shall I request that a debate be set up for us Junebug? Or are you, perhaps, using "this is not the thread to discuss evidence" as a shield.....?

Before we continue with that discussion, I must ask what your qualifications are. Are you an expert scientist ready to conduct experiments and if so what kind of experiments are we going to do? My "report"evidence was dismissed by screwey as legal evidence not scientific, but I am more than happy to cooperate with any expert scientist with knowledge and equipment. Maybe WE could solve the mystery once and for all!

I'm not the one dictating what a person can say and what they can't. This is a major reason I wouldn't want to live in an atheist environment, no freedom of speech.

The only experiment I have ever conducted is trying the philosophies I have mentioned in my life with very successful results. It would be my pleasure to share with you Anf.

I'll take that as a "yes" then - I'll get the debate set up. Looking forward to it.

Junebug has agreed to debate me on the evidence she has for her god. I would appreciate it if a debate room could be set up please.

I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?

Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:

-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position) -Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator) -Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)-Closing Statements

*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate. *Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)

Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?

I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?

Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:

-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position) -Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator) -Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)-Closing Statements

*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate. *Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)

Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?

i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.

if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?

Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:

-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position) -Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator) -Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)-Closing Statements

*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate. *Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)

Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?

i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.

if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.

I can understand why someone whose intentions were to troll the forum would decline. Their outcome would more readily be obtained by, say, responding with fallacies and diversions such as red-herrings, reversing the burden of proof, demanding people defend themselves against various tropes, ignoring detailed and specific questions whilst responding with out-of-context replies to minor points, demanding replies but ignoring questions, appeals to ignorance, god of the gaps arguments, and so on. A troll, for example, would demand proof of everything leveled against him whilst providing no backup for his vague claims.

I could also understand how someone who held themselves to a different standard of proof then they required of their questioners to decline such a challenge.

Of course, one would expect someone who wasn't able to back up their claims to decline, but none of that should apply to someone who boasts of eight years of bringing people to his Christ.

Equally, a one-on-one debate ought to relieve the pressure from someone who feels that they are being overwhelmed with questions and insults. So this all ought to be a win for skeptic54768 as this debate would allow skeptic to focus on one thread and not many.

So it's puzzling to see someone saying that they are declining because having less questions is more time consuming than more questions; how having agreed-upon terms and a specific subject would result in more, not less, topics; how agreeing on standards would lead to being [falsely] accused of not responding to the agreed standard; and how median would need to REALLY want a debate that he REALLY asked for here and in other topics.

i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.

if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.

As usual, you seem to be expressing a kind of cognitive dissonance (the 'yes' but 'no' absurdity). I'm not going to sit here and hound you for a debate. Either you accept or you do not. Are you expecting some sort of 'begging'? As xyzzy has noted, you've already stated that "keeping it to the threads" is too much for you to handle. But now you're contradicting yourself by declining this debate opportunity (which is only one thread and one other person) by saying it is too time consuming. Which is it?! You already spend lots of time in the threads not answering all sorts of responses. So what gives?

This debate would be an opportunity for you to (potentially) get souls saved by presenting your case (as strong as it can be made for all to see) and focus your attention on the main subject that many here are asking you for.

Yes, I am sure that were you to agree to a one-on-one debate, no one would complain were you to drop out of the threads you are already involved in. It's not as though you were really giving meaningful answers there anyway. This would enable you to deal with one issue at a time, with only one person asking the questions. Far less stress. Far more scope for you to give well thought-out responses without having to worry about a gazillion people ready and waiting to rip them to shreds. God could really work through you in such a setting. Even if some of your responses seemed as though they were being mercilessly shot down, don't you think that God could inspire you with some nuggets of wisdom which would speak to at least a few of the people reading? Would that really be beyond his powers to accomplish? Or do you feel that your communication skills are so poor that even God couldn't overcome them?

OK, that last bit may have been a bit of a dig, but don't you get it? I, for one, would really be interested in what a theist like you might have to say if all the distractions to real dialogue were removed. Do any of your thoughts have enough substance to withstand atheist questioning?

I am challenging Godexists to a debate, with the following topic: Complexity can naturally increase, given the right conditions.

I propose the framework of rules listed here, specifically the formal debate rules listed first, with some modifications.

First off, I have already defined the topic. Second, we will write our initial arguments as our opening posts in the debate thread; this also counts as presenting our argument. Third, we will take turns supporting our own argument and refuting our opponent's. We will each take no more than three follow-up posts to do this. Rebuttals must be supported with positive evidence.

In order to determine who won, I would like to request five people who are willing to vote after the debate is done, who will base their votes on how well each of us presented our arguments; effectively who made the better case. These can be any members in good standing (basically, who have more than 100 posts as of midnight GMT, 1/25/2014.).